Got from another LENR researcher: "There are several reported values for the enthalpy of formation of nickel hydride with -8.8 kJ/mol being the lowest and -16.3 kJ/mol being the highest at standard temperature and pressure."
He went on to show that given a wire containing 0.3g of Ni, enthalpy could account for less than 10 watts for 10 seconds. I took away that no matter how you torture the numbers, the resulting values are going to be orders of magnitude too small to account for Celani-type results. I have a spreadsheet with the calculations. If anyone wants to see it I'll go back to him and ask him about sharing. Jeff On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 09:17 PM 12/12/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: > >> Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy >> required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various >> LENR/CF devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of >> excess energy from the operation of the devices still valid? >> >> [mg] >> > > This has been studied in great detail. However, there is a bit of a > misunderstanding here. Loading of hydrogen or deuterium into palladium, for > example, is exothermic. I'm not so sure about nickel. > > But, certainly in the study of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, the study > has taken into account all the known chemistry. Further, many different > types of controls have been used. And for frosting on the cake, again with > the FPHE, helium has been measured and shown to be correlated with the > excess energy. The value of the ratio is the value expected from the fusion > of deuterium to helium, and this has been confirmed by a dozen research > groups. > > Above I mention that the loading of deuterium into palladium is > exothermic. So "heat after death" is particularly interesting, where cells > develop very substantial anomalous heat when the electrolytic current, > which is used to maintain high loading, is turned *off*. A lot of heat can > appear, lasting for days, sometimes. At that point, the deuterium will > start to deload, it's like evaporation, and like evaporation, this will > *cool* the cathode. > > The skeptical answer to this has been the "cigarette lighter effect," > i.e., a claim that the deloading deuterium is combusting. But there isn't > enough oxygen there for that. This would quickly extinguish itself, if it > were happening. > > Look, cold fusion was discovered by expert chemists. They actually did, > Mark, know what they were talking about. Pons and Fleischmann were not > physicists and they had no experience measuring neutrons, but they thought > they could trust a neutron meter. No. So they ended up with egg on their > faces from making a claim about neutron radiation that any expert > physicists, experienced with measuring neutrons, would not have made. > > But Fleischmann was the world's foremost experts on electrochemistry, and > the calorimetry they used was about the best ever done. They were measuring > heat to the milliwatt. Their work has been confirmed with many different > approaches, and imagining that such an obvious error as forgetting to allow > for whatever went into the cell would be made by so many experts -- cold > fusion researchers are *mostly* expert chemists -- is rather naive. > > Something that is overlooked is that the FPHE is set up by loading > palladium with deuterium. That is an energy-producing process, but > maintaining the electrolysis for a long time does consume energy. That > energy ends up as the potential energy of separated hydrogen/deuterium and > oxygen. If that's allowed to escape, and if it were not accounted for, it > would be negative XP. Open cells, like those of Pons and Fleischmann, are > pretty complex to analyze, partly because of this. SRI International, which > was hired by the Electric Power Research Institute in 1989 to research cold > fusion, built their own calorimeter, and it was not as sensitive as the > work done by P&F, but it was basically bulletproof, flow calorimetry, > running at constant temperature, not vulernable to calibration problems (on > the other hand, P&F calibrated their calorimetry with a resistor pulse > every day). SRI, and many researchers, use a recombiner in the cell, which > essentially burns the generated gas in the cell, recovering that energy, so > there is no need to compensate for it. There does need to be an accounting > for orphaned oxygen, but, again, that is a negative contribution to > anomalous power. It represents unrecombined gas that has stored up so much > energy. > > People have gone over the calorimetry in this work with a fine-tooth comb. > Minor errors have been claimed or identified, but the basic cold fusion > calorimetry work stands, and if you can figure out a way that helium just > happens to match, with the FPHE, heat from the calorimetry, other than > having a common cause, well, you have a much better imagination than I. It > doesn't merely correlate, it correlates at the fusion value. That would > ordinarily be considered totally conclusive. Skeptics have independently > challenged the calorimetry and, as well, the helium measurements, claiming > that it might be leakage, but what I've seen is that the skeptics ignore > the correlation, which actually acts to confirm both the heat and helium > measurements, at least in round outlines. > > Mark, if you want to know the science here, read Storms, "Status of cold > fusion (2010)" in Naturwissenschaften. There is a preprint on > lenr-canr.org. That's a peer-reviewed review of the field in a mainstream > journal, established in 1913, now owned by Springer-Verlag and operated as > their "flagship multidisciplinary journal." That's the state of the > science. The extreme skeptical view disappeared from the journals long ago, > there have been 16 positive reviews of cold fusion in mainstream journals > since 2005. > > Obviously, a lot of people haven't gotten the message. However, > scientifically, it's all over. Now, that does *not* automatically result in > practical devices. It's somewhat possible, though probably unlikely, that > the original cold fusion with PdD will *never* be practical. I'd love to > think that Nickel hydride approaches will work, because they would be much > cheaper, but there is nowhere near the level of scientific confirmation for > them as for palladium hydride. We don't know the ash, for example, like we > do for palladium deuteride. > > But cold fusion is real, at least with palladium deuteride, and probably > with other approaches as well. By the way, above I discussed electrolytic > loading. Gas loading has also been done with palladium deuteride, and there > is no "input energy." When the palladium material is loaded with gas, it > gets hot from the heat of formation of palladium deuteride, which is a > chemical effect. That heat cools down fairly rapidly, and with appropriate > materials, what continues is anomalous. It's not been a lot of heat, but it > is not there with hydrogen. And it accumulates as to energy generated, it's > very significant. These things stay warm for a long time, long after the > chemical heat has died away. > > In some of the nickel hydrogen experiments that you have been looking at, > there are lots of questions about the calorimetry, this is much shakier > work than the solid and very careful palladium deuteride work of Pons and > Fleischmann, McKubre of SRI, and others. It's investigational work, that's > why it's shaky. Quick and dirty. Efforts are underway to do this work > (Celanni in particular) with better calorimetry. But the idea that energy > to load would not be considered was, as I wrote, naive. And it is not > necessarily relevant. > > Generally, all energy input to these experiments is recorded and > considered. > >
